10 ms·

> Socialized health care is not socialism Then how do you define socialism, if it is not government-provided public services?

jhbadger 9y ago
The term has several meanings. Scandinavian countries consider themselves socialist for their high levels of government support of education and healthcare, but so did the Soviet Union and similar countries with a state-run centralized command economy. When people in the US rally against "socialism" they are either thinking that what people in favor of socialism want is a centralized command economy or think that it is a slippery slope and that government support of health care will eventually lead to a Bolshevik insurrection or something.
- TuringTest 9y ago
  Thanks, that explanation is helpful. In the future when I discuss about socialism with US people, I'll take into account the likeliness that they're attacking a boogeyman, and that a precise definition of the term will be needed to advance the discussion.
  - ulucs 9y ago
    you might be interested in this http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/
    - TuringTest 9y ago
      Thanks for the read. I intuitively try to avoid loaded words and think in terms of the properties they define; though this thread was about the term "socialism" in particular, not just the general concepts covered by it.
VMG 9y ago
I define "Socialism" as the inventors defined it: workers owning the means of production.
- TuringTest 9y ago
  Public services in social democracies fit that definition.
- onion2k 9y ago
  That's Marxism, and that definition is over 100 years old. Politics has moved on. Modern socialism is simply a larger central government providing more public services than a typical conservative government. It's also worth noting that Marx included things like national infrastructure in his definition of "means of production", and I haven't noticed that many privately owned roads in the USA... Maybe you're not quite as far from socialism as you'd like to believe.

jhbadger 9y ago

The term has several meanings. Scandinavian countries consider themselves socialist for their high levels of government support of education and healthcare, but so did the Soviet Union and similar countries with a state-run centralized command economy. When people in the US rally against "socialism" they are either thinking that what people in favor of socialism want is a centralized command economy or think that it is a slippery slope and that government support of health care will eventually lead to a Bolshevik insurrection or something.

TuringTest 9y ago
Thanks, that explanation is helpful. In the future when I discuss about socialism with US people, I'll take into account the likeliness that they're attacking a boogeyman, and that a precise definition of the term will be needed to advance the discussion.
- ulucs 9y ago
  you might be interested in this http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/
  - TuringTest 9y ago
    Thanks for the read. I intuitively try to avoid loaded words and think in terms of the properties they define; though this thread was about the term "socialism" in particular, not just the general concepts covered by it.

VMG 9y ago

I define "Socialism" as the inventors defined it: workers owning the means of production.

TuringTest 9y ago
Public services in social democracies fit that definition.
onion2k 9y ago
That's Marxism, and that definition is over 100 years old. Politics has moved on. Modern socialism is simply a larger central government providing more public services than a typical conservative government. It's also worth noting that Marx included things like national infrastructure in his definition of "means of production", and I haven't noticed that many privately owned roads in the USA... Maybe you're not quite as far from socialism as you'd like to believe.